A.K.ANNAMALAI J. - (1.) The Respondents 1&2 as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum, Krishnagiri, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to replace the machine with a new one, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 2nd opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Krishnagiri dated 26.09.2008 in C.C.No.76/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 29.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- The 2nd opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The Respondents/complainants filed a complaint praying for the relief of directing the opposite parties to replace the machine with a new one, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs.
(3.) The details of the complaint in brief are as follows :- The 1st complainant purchased a Aquaguard Classic water filter-cum-Purifier for a sum of Rs.7390/- on 31.5.2005. Within a few days of purchase the said machine become defective and the complainant asked the opposite party to replace the machine with a new one. Again the machine not worked properly even then the opposite party for the second time also changed the water pump motor again the complainant asked for replacement of the said machine. But the opposite party informed the complainant to have service contract with him and then they would rectify the defects and solve the problems then and there. On that basis the complainant on 19.5.2006 to paid a sum of Rs.890/- towards service contract for one year received the receipt and on 11.6.2007 to paid Rs.1640/- for two year years service. Even then the water pump had defects. The above said defective set sold by the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant sent a complaint on 15.9.2007 to the Consumer Protection Council and he has sent a complaint on 21.9.2007 to the opposite party. But the opposite parties neither sent a reply nor paid any compensation to the complainant. Hence the complainants come forward with this complaint seeking the relief against the opposite parties as prayed for.;